Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
will say, we are told, that the cia was able to disprove that. that the video at the end of the day didn't have much to do with it, if anything, but the problem is that disproving of that theory came after he first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, th
that complaint within several months lead to the resignation of david petreaus. resignation of the cia director david petraeus and on that note, here is piers morgan tonight. >>> starting with breaking news tonight, you are looking at capitol hill where david petraeus is to testify in front of the senate committee. meanwhile, we are learning more about the agent who was the first to be identified to have started this. he said that the infamous shirtless picture he sent to her was a joke and several years ago. and now we will listen to what the president has to say about the argument over susan rice. >> if senator graham and senator mccain want to go after somebody, they should go after me, and i'm happy to have that discussion, but for them to gof a u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and simply making a prez sentation information she had receive and to besmirch her reputation is outrageo outrageous. >> if the president thinks that we are pick on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> the benghazi battle turning into a hot issue. i will talk t
of the cia. tell me why i shouldn't be skeptical. ? >> the fbi conducts many of investigations sometimes the are high profile and sometimes less high profile. this was a less high profile investigation but the fbi reports through the justice department and it does not notify the white house or the president about investigations that are underway. my experience is that we got told about indictments that were going to be coming forward and we were not consulted or informed about investigations underway. this is not just something that happens with a republican attorney general. >> you are talking about one of the top intelligence agencies. you are talking about the chief and over a sex scandal that could potentially and had brought him down. it is an issue whether you want to have political judgements exercised. there are no rules here. no laws here. no conventions here other than under a normal circ come stances, the fbi does not consult the white house in these kinds of investigations because no matter who is the president, you don't want the white house to be involved in making the deci
of a ground invation. first, inside the capital where general petraeus testifies about gen gassy, the ex-cia chief brought down by an affair showed it was a terrorist attack. he also said it was intentionally withheld with his affairs of tipping off the terrorist group. the cia's talking points in response to the missile initially calling it a terrorist attack that was edited out of the final version. the change was not made for political reasons. bear with me now as congressman, ranking member of intelligence. welcome to you. >> good to be here, pierce. >> we now know the white house, the statement coming from tommy. >> the talking points about the intelligence, and the white house and state department changing consulate to diplomatic facility for ak ras pep a line being drawn by the white house that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created
, and who made what changes from the initial analysis done by the cia, we want to know who did what. i believe that the white house only changed one thing, and that was the word "consulate" to "mission." i do not believe that any part of the administration in the sense of the white house made any changes and we know when director petraeus came to the senate intelligence committee the day after the event and we happened to have a transcript of this, that he gave us his view that this was, in fact, a terrorist attack. but there was some reluctance of including one of the groups which was al qaeda. this is sort of a loose thing with people kind of knitting together quite possibly from three different groups, but it was an attack and there should be no doubt about that. nonetheless, susan rice has been pilloried because she did what was required of her, which was to use those talking points. so we really need to know and she is getting the blame for it and quite unfairly. >> well, she will continue to get the blame, of course, until somebody else is fingered for it, because clearly, she wa
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)